Today's song comes from a much better movie than the one I will be discussing. You should watch it instead.

~~~

Let me tell you a tale. It all started in the summer of ’17. That was the summer I was on a horror movie binge, when I watched such greats as The Shining and Rosemary’s Baby for the first time. And then one day, purely by accident, I stumbled across a little horror movie called Audition. Hey, this looks neat, I thought. It was by a famous Japanese director whose filmography I’d barely viewed, it was going for cheap at the local rental place, and my parents seemed enthusiastic about it. Why not? So Friday night, with freshly-made popcorn and bright-eyed enthusiasm, my parents and I sat down to see what Audition had to offer.

What followed was the worst family movie night experience since The Lobster[1].

First off, I should admit the role of some bias on my part. You see, Audition, whilst ostensibly horror, happens to be my absolute least favorite type of horror: the gross-out gorefest. It is my firmly-held belief that the best kind of horror elicits dread, a suspenseful buzz that quickens the pulse and heightens the heartrate, a steady flow of unease, if you will. To break that buzz with jump scares and shocking imagery is bad enough, but to completely transform it into disgust and nausea utterly defeats the point and demeans the genre, in my humble opinion.

My own snooty genre proclivities aside though, there is another, far deeper problem with Audition, that being its protagonist. You see, he is an idiot. Now, you gotta understand, I’m not talking about your average, run-of-the-mill moron. No no, I mean he’s a grade-a, stone-cold, dyed-in-the-wool dingbat. He’s a nitwit, a ninny, a schnook, a schlemiel. Why he’s the stupidest horror protagonist I ever done seen, and I’ve seen a fair few in my day.

Now come on Raymond, you sigh. You’re not being very sporting here, are you? You say this man is an idiot, and yet you’ve given no evidence to back this up. And besides, horror protagonists get accused of being stupid all the time. What makes your criticism any different from those butthurt dudebros complaining about those waily slasher protagonists, apart from the blonde hair and pom-poms?

To this I say, good, fine, a well and valid point. But remember, the entire premise of those slasher films is that a group of young, hormonally addled teenagers are systematically hunted down and murdered one by one, oftentimes within a secluded and isolated environment. Given such circumstances, I can at least suspend my disbelief enough to buy a high-school cheerleader acting somewhat irrational once she realizes she’s next on the kill list. What I can’t accept is this baka acting just as irrational and clueless, if not MORE so, than said cheerleader even BEFORE anything weird or horrifying happens.

But, I’m getting ahead of myself. I should probably explain the plot first. Okay, so there’s this guy, Aoyama. He’s a middle-aged widower and single father, who keeps getting pestered by friends and family to get back in the dating game. He’s reluctant at first, but then one day a friend of his, who just so happens to be a television producer, comes over to him and says “Hey! Guess what? We are currently holding auditions for the new leading lady in our latest teledrama, and I want you to show up. See, in these kinds of things, we go through hundreds of applicants, many of whom are quite nice and very attractive. And I figure, hey, only one woman can get the part, but there’s no reason the other girls should go home empty-handed. Eh? Eh? Come on, surely there’s gotta be at least someone there you’ll hit it off with.”

Aoyama, in his usual fashion, responds with an “Um, uh, well, um…” This will be a recurring habit of his.

So finally, after being dragged to the audition (ah, d’you seee?)[2] Aoyama sets his sights on one lady in particular, Asami, a beautiful (albeit kind of creepy), young (to an ephebic degree), and soft-spoken (you can never tell what she’s thinking) ballerina (whose teacher disappeared under mysterious circumstances). Now, you or I can easily see that, despite being quite a catch, Asami is setting off a few red flags right from the get-go. And indeed, Aoyama’s buddy explicitly says “Hey man, I know she’s cute and all, but like, you might want to be careful going into all this is all I’m saying.” But Aoyama is of course having none of that and completely ignores all the other candidates.

Now, okay, I could possibly forgive that. Lord knows countless men and women have taken similarly stupid plunges in the name of getting nookie, and hey, if Aoyama didn’t go for Asami, we wouldn’t have a story, would we? Here’s the thing though. This is not the only warning sign he receives over the course of the movie. Indeed, you could reasonably say that the first 90 minutes of this film are nothing but a series of increasingly disturbing warning signs which Aoyama ignores. And not only ignores, but outright fails to even react to!

Let me break it down for you. Pretty early on, Aoyama’s buddy pulls him aside and says “Hey man, c’mere, lemme talk t’you fer a sec. Listen, I dunno how t’tell y’this, but none of the gal’s references check out. Like, none of ’em. At all. So like, I think you should maybe just, like, be careful or something. You know, just exercise a little caution, maybe wait a while before you call her next.”

Aoyama, in his usual fashion, responds with an “Um, uh, well, um…” and then immediately proceeds to call Asami.

Now, to be fair, Aoyama doesn’t see the bag-man, so this is entirely within the realms of information given to us the audience which is not given to the protagonist. But you know what is given to him? Well for starts, there’s his son saying “Hey dad, listen I’m real happy for you and all, but I just feel like maybe you’re rushing into things a bit.”, there’s his friend (again) saying “Dude! Seriously! This girl is bad news! Abort! Abort!”, oh yeah, and there’s the GHOST OF HIS DEAD WIFE coming to him in a dream and explicitly screaming “RUN! IF YOU VALUE THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENT OF YOUR TESTICLES RUN! RUN THE FUCK AWAY FROM THIS BITCH! SHE’S CRAZY I TELL YOU! CRAAAZYYY!!!”

Now, if you or I were faced with such advice from friends and family, we might stop and think “Huh, maybe I should reconsider the current trajectory of this relationship.” If an ordinary horror protagonist was faced with it, they might stop and think “Huh, maybe I should reconsider the current trajectory of this…nah, let’s give it one more date.” However, Aoyama is no ordinary fellow, nor is he an ordinary horror protagonist. He’s the stupidest horror protagonist I ever done seen, and his reaction to all these warnings is to try tracking Asami down to her house. There are many ways to deal with a potential serial killer. Going in alone and unprotected into their headquarters without backup or even telling anyone is not one of them.

Of course, there is one slight problem with Aoyama's plan. Remember, none of Asami’s references check out, so Aoyama only has a few tenuous leads to go on in his search. Fortunately he finds answers pretty quickly. Unfortunately…ugh…

So he goes to this bar that Asami says she works at. He finds it abandoned. When he asks about, the local expositor explains “What? That bar? Oh, yeah, there was a really gruesome murder there, a while back. Yeah, there was a young woman, and a guy, and the guy slept with the mama at the bar, and then one morning the cops found the bar drenched in blood. It’s weird, they didn’t find any bodies, but they identified the blood as belonging to the guy and the mama. Oh yeah, and they found an eye and three fingers. The young woman disappeared. Man, it’s so weird, but I mean, it’s not like the young woman sounds exactly like your girlfriend or anything, hahaha! Hohoho! Peace.”

Now…if you were in that position, what would you do? Run? Forget Asami? Plunge forward for the sake of getting some? All fine and good responses. Now…now uh, now tell me…what do you think Aoyama, in his…infinite wisdom, does? Hm? HMM?

“Sigh”

Aoyama, in his usual fashion, responds with an “Um, uh, well, um…” And then…then he goes to a dance studio that Asami supposedly frequents. Only to find, oh, wow, it’s completely abandoned and boarded up. Who could have possibly seen that coming?

So anyways, Aoyama hears piano music coming from the studio, so he breaks in, and inside he finds an elderly man sitting in a wheelchair, playing the piano in the corner of a darkened dance-room. No-one else is around. The man looks like he’s been there for who knows how long. Suddenly, as Aoyama steps into the room, the man halts his playing, and glances up. Slowly he turns, and sees a frightened Aoyama, breath bated in surprise. Then, a sick, slimy grin splays across the old man’s face, and with teetering, arthritic hands, he rolls his way over to our hero.

This time Aoyama doesn’t respond. No, seriously. Where others might flee in terror or proclaim “Old man, you be tripping.”, Aoyama…does nothing. He exits the ballet studio in the exact same state of mind as when he entered. He completely, utterly, and inconceivably refuses to even acknowledge what just occurred. Great Belin man! Are you for real? Give us something, anything! Even an “Um, uh, well, um…” would be satisfactory. But no, no! Instead Aoyama’s only thoughts are “Huh. I wonder where Asami is.” Are you serious? Are you genuinely, legitimately serious at this point, Aoyama? Sweet baby Jesus man, no amount of half-your-age nookie can possibly justify this level of willful stupidity! Are you really, really going to do this?

Aoyama, in his usual fashion, responds with an “Um, uh, well, um…”

It was at this point my parents and I began exchanging bewildered glances.

Then he comes home and finds Asami’s killed his dog and OMIGOD NO! NOOO! HOW COULD YOU TAKASHI MIIKE? HOW COULD YOU? GOD FUCKING DAMMIT! I FUCKING REMEMBER WHEN THE DOG FIRST APPEARED IN THIS GODDAMN FILM AND MY HEART SKIPPED A LITTLE BEAT AND I PRAYED “Oh please Lord. Please, kill the boy, kill the housekeeper, kill the protagonist for God’s sake, but don’t, for the love of God, don’t kill the dog.” AND THE DOG IS THE ONLY ONE TO FUCKING DIE IN THE WHOLE FUCKING MOVIE AND

Oooh, you cry. Duh! Buh! Raymond! Ssspoiiileeers! For a movie that was released in 1999! Which is mostly known for the massive orgy of death and violence in the last 20 minutes of its runtime! Well fuck you! This is a tale, goddammit! I’ll spoil whatever the hell I like! You want a review, go read Armond fucking White!

Anyways, where was I? Ah yes, so Asami slips something into Aoyama’s drink, he trips balls for a couple minutes, during which time we are treated to the fate of that guy (you know, the one in the bag who slept with the mama), the old man, oh yeah, and we find out what the deal with Aoyama’s secretary was. For real dude, what the hell? Oh yeah, also we get to witness the most uncomfortable blowjob scene in the history of cinema! Nobody enjoyed that scene, least of all you. What else? Ah, of course, how stupid of me. Asami cuts off Aoyama’s foot in lovingly rendered, crystal clear, high definition.

It was at this point my father left the living room.

My mother and I, more out of spite than anything else at this point, figured we’d see the film through to the end, and honestly, even in my current, spoilery mindset, I can’t be bothered to give the ending away. Partly because I still have some spoiler scruples, partly because it’s so bland and predictable you can see it coming a mile away, and partly because…I just don’t want to. Suffice it to say, things turn out alright in the end. I mean, there was all that gross-out stuff, which I don’t recommend even for you gorefest aficionados, but apart from that, and, y’know, the whole foot thing, Aoyama is none the worse for wear, and is already planning to tell this latest crazy ex story at the next work outing[3].

Normally after a family movie night, my family and I like to chat about the movie. You know, what we liked, what we didn’t like, that sort of thing. This time, my mother and I remained in silence as we took the disc out, put it back in the case, and turned the tv off. When we walked upstairs to the dining room, we found my father sipping a mug of tea, like some men would swig a flask of brandy after a harrowing day’s work.

“So,” he grunted. “Did we ever find out why she was…y’know, the way she was?”

And, strange as it may seem, it wasn’t until then that I realized, Audition isn’t actually a good movie. Seriously, my own distaste for gorefests aside, this is a bad film. I’ve seen plenty of people say this is a feminist movie, which casts a critical lens on the patriarchal society of Japan and like, smashes all these preconceptions about women and fights for their rights and I call bullshit, for three main reasons.

Number one, the only thing Aoyama is ever really punished for is getting involved with the wrong sort of woman. Not the audition itself, not the way he treated the actual nice women that he said he was looking for, not for wanting to bang an ephebic ballerina or his son’s teenage girlfriend, no, simply for getting involved with a “crazy” girl.

Number two, Asami doesn’t seem to be motivated by anything other than petty jealousy in her revenge methods. Remember, she killed the mama at the bar, whom you could reasonably say was as much a victim of the guy’s womanizing ways as Asami was. And as for the guy himself, Asami’s torture of him is expressly designed to make him totally dependent on her, not to punish him for straying, but to make herself more valuable to him so that he won’t ever want to stray. And finally, this leads to the biggest reason.

Number three, we never get any explanation for why Asami is the way she is. There is a cursory comment about how because she was abused as a child she came to believe that love and pain were inseparable and can you see how deep and philosophical this movie is but it’s an esoteric bluff. At the end of the day, it doesn’t alter our perception of her in any meaningful way. She’s still a crazy serial killer, who kills dogs and mutilates men for shits and giggles. This explanation doesn’t serve to make us empathize with her. Just the opposite, it makes her even creepier, and drives the point that she’s a villain that needs to be stopped even further home. In the end, the only explanation we really get is that same, old, tired cliché: That bitch is crazy.

In the end, there are some interesting themes and concepts in Audition, but the movie never really goes anywhere interesting or says anything meaningful with them, instead always choosing to take the easiest, goriest, most juvenile way out. Anything great in the movie is snuffed out by disinterested shrugs and handwaves, and all that’s left is sex and violence. It’s rather like going to a classical music concert, where midway through the concerto the pianist suddenly screams “FUCK EVERYTHING!”, throws a cat onto the keyboard, sets the piano on fire, guns the remaining orchestra down, cackles as the concert hall explodes, and then shoot the cat in the knee after it tries to sue[4]. I know the movie is based off a book, and maybe that does a better job handling the ideas the story puts forward, but honestly, with an audition like this, I don’t think I’m gonna call this story back anytime soon.

It’s funny. I’m sure there’s a moral to be learned from this tale. I just have no idea what it is. Maybe it’s don’t disrespect women. Maybe it’s bitches be crazy. But personally, I think the best moral this tale has to offer is this: Know what you’re getting into. Please, if you take nothing else from this, just remember that. Know what you are getting into.

[1] We thought it was a romantic comedy, okay? The synopsis made it sound like a wacky romantic comedy![2] Yes, yes, YES! Since day ONE I have been waiting to say that and now I've finally done it! Haha! やった！[3] Where he’ll probably sleep with his new secretary and toss her aside just as callously seriously what the hell dude?[4] Seriously, in all its 60 cat years in the industry it’s never been treated this badly, not once! 60 cat years! And that’s like, 11 human years!

See, I have a different take on Audition. Yes, Aoyama acts like a fool. On the other hand, he acts like precisely the sort of fool patriarchal society has set him up to be.

There's a cliche in discussing dating and the risks people face in that context of "Men are afraid of being embarrassed; women are afraid of being murdered", and there's quite a big chunk of truth to it: women are by far the targets of violence more than they are the perpetrators of it in dating contexts, and I know numerous women who feel that they have to take various safety steps when going on a date in the event that the person they're with turns out to be some form of abuser - the classic full-blown serial killer being an extreme example, but hardly an unknown one. I don't think I've ever known a man to express the same fears about meeting up with a woman.

So far as I can tell, the whole point of Audition is to depict a man who, for once, is actually subject to the same danger that women are routinely subjected to in dating - and because he's a privileged little patriarch, he doesn't recognise the danger at all. That's part of how privilege works - it insulates you from the very idea that someone might dare to harm you. (As a beneficiary of that privilege, I often find it eye-opening and startling how much others who don't get the same benefits have to be wary.)

So sure, he gets all these people suggesting that he should distance himself from Asami, but when has the disapproval of one's peers ever prompted anyone to break off a new relationship? And sure, he investigates Asami's background and finds out that something is up, but I think it entirely makes sense for him to decide that whatever that is, it surely can't be her fault - that if anything, she's in trouble and she needs a doughy patriarch like him to save her. The possibility that she might be the trouble doesn't occur to Aoyama because he doesn't conceive of young, pretty girls as being capable of being trouble. And you know how the saying goes: when you assume, you make an ass out of yourself and lose a foot.

As far as Asami's apparent lack of clear motivations go, I don't consider them a problem. The stated motivations of real life serial killers aren't especially narratively satisfactory either, in most cases. Again, so far as I can see, the whole point of Asami is that she is (on a somewhat grand guignol scale) exactly the sort of sadistic abuser that women have to be afraid of on a regular basis, but which men are rarely in danger from. Plus, giving her actions a convincing rationale would run the risk of, if not excusing them, at least making them somehow sympathetic.

...Okay...I see what you're saying...and I half-agree, but I still don't quite see it that way, and it all boils down to that word you used "sympathetic". I think, if you are trying to point a lens at a put-upon group of people, then you need to paint that group with at least some degree of sympathy, but from my experience, the audience's sympathy seemed intended for Aoyama all the way through, even when they demonstrated some of his more reprehensible thoughts and actions. Ultimately, even if this film was intended to subtly mock viewers' patriarchal prejudices, it still set about doing it with a scaaary woman that needed to be killed. So it's kind of like reading Dracula as a subtle critique of Victorian pomposity and prejudice. Considering that Stoker was himself an Irishman, that's an entirely valid reading, but because Dracula is a blood-drinking, soulless abomination, it somewhat shoots the message in the foot. Maybe it's because of my experience reading Naomi, which seemed like it's criticizing its patriarchal protagonist, but then was actually just about how if you let women have male friends or talk back in any way it'll destroy society.

You are right, unless there's a clear power imbalance, when women are abusive to men, they go for emotional and psychological abuse, rather than physical, at least from my experience. And maybe it's because of that experience that I'm bitter and cynical, and was thus more receptive to the warning signs Asami exhibited. However, by making Asami, as you said, a female version of the sort of serial killer a woman might encounter on the dating scene, I think the filmmakers went too far, from satire to farce. I do like what you pointed out, that Aoyama's stupidity can be chalked up partially to how he never suspects Asami might be the trouble, and I know that can be a blinder. But again, I think without any sympathy, Asami's excessive psychopathy ended up hurting any potentially anti-sexism message the film had. By making her the abuser, and making Aoyama the victim, it makes it difficult to see beyond that evil woman / good man dynamic. Maybe it worked better in the book, maybe I'm too distrustful to put myself fully in Aoyama's shoes, but I don't know.

Geez, that was long-winded and messy. Sorry. Uh, I guess, in summation, I think you make several valid points, but I just can't agree %100.

I dunno, I think you can write and effective horror yarn around a largely unsympathetic cast. The point of horror isn't necessarily to reflect empathy with the characters themselves; rather, as Thomas Ligotti has argued, horror is about empathy with a set of shared fears and a shared understanding with the author. The shared fear here is not that of the protagonist person see, pathetic though he is, but of women within a patriarchal society which objectifies and abuses them; the empathy may in part be with the victim, made a patsy by societal expectations, but also with the author's dim view of said society.

Okay! So, uh, I guess I ought to start with some kind of disclaimer or something. This article was simply meant as a means to laugh at a bad family movie night experience. By laughing at things, we often are able to deal with and process them better, after all. However, Arthur's initial comment struck a chord with me. Not because he disagreed with my opinion on the internet (the unforgivable sin), but because his comment

As a beneficiary of that privilege, I often find it eye-opening and startling how much others who don't get the same benefits have to be wary.

made me realize that my own experiences with dating and romance may not have been, for lack of a better word, "normal". I've always laughed at the things that happened to me, because, again, that makes them easier to deal with, and I'd always thought that, because I was a straight, cis guy, whatever had happened to me couldn't possibly measure up to what women or trans people face on a daily basis. And it doesn't. But after talking with friends and family, I realize it does matter, and I can't just keep laughing it off. Just because a disease isn't cancer or AIDS doesn't mean it isn't fatal if left untreated. And I need to treat this. So, uh, thanks Arthur, I guess.

Hoo! Okay, that was...man! I'm glad you convinced me to use a pseudonym, Arthur, because without that I'd probably have kept all that under a pickle-jar-tight lid. But ironically enough, an internet-based mask let me open up and deal with a deep-rooted issue in my life. Tell everybody what, next article I write will be about a happy romantic comedy.

Okay, now to address Ichneumon's comment, and Arthur's comment correctly this time! What bugged me about a lot of reviews that praised Audition's supposed feminist credentials was that they operated under the logic of "Asami tries to kill the guy that objectified her, ergo she is a feminist hero, ergo this is a feminist film". I don't agree with that line of logic, for the reasons I listed in the article. However, re-reading Arthur's comment, I see that you're actually going down a different logic route. "Asami is a reflection of the worst fears a woman in the dating scene can face, ergo by making her a her and her victim a him, it flips the power dynamic of this traditional, real-world horror and thus casts a lens on said real-world horror." Ichneumon, your comment, if I understand it correctly, is basically "Even if you don't like Aoyama, you can still empathize with his fear, and thus even if the movie seems to be 'sympathizing' with him, it could still be deeply criticizing him."

Thinking about it, I would say those are valid "readings" of the film, and again, maybe my own experiences have clouded my own reading. Even accepting your readings though, I stand by my judgment that Miike went for the most gratuitously violent and juvenile route when dealing with these issues. Even thinking back on the film and going "Oh yeah, I guess that's right", I still think Miike was too focused on "Whoo! Blood! Guts! Fuckin' gorefest maaan!" for me to consider this a good film. Genre fiction, in my opinion, is used best when wrapping real-world issues and problems in a creamy, more easily-digestible genre coating. In the case of horror, no boogeyman or monster under the bed can compare to the myriad ways that human beings can hurt you, but personifying real-world fears as boogeymen and monsters can make them or their memory a little easier to confront. But I think Miike was too firmly focused on the personification of Asami to really give the real-world fears behind her conception the focus and subtlety they deserve. I don't think horror should be "feel-good", but it should give you the courage to face your fears. This film seems more focused on making patriarchally-insulated men as scared as women are when it comes to dating, and it stops at that point, rather than going on to make the male audience think about how to change this patriarchal system. And that, I think, is why I still can't bring myself to like this film.

Yeah, I think any reading of the film where Asami is any sort of "hero" is simply untenable - when you take into account more or less every aspect of how the movie frames her actions and their effect on people, the argument simply doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Oh, I agree. But I do think the subtext is quite important here in terms of the mechanics of the horror even if one does not care for the execution. Asami is a ghoulish subversion of the assumptions of a patriarchal society made flesh; her existence as a concept may resonate, but that does not make her anything resembling a sympathetic character—if anything, that type of character is more a force of nature, an emanation of the malevolence or harrowing indifference of greater forces rather than a person in themselves.

apart from that, and, y’know, the whole foot thing, Aoyama is none the worse for wear

Doesn't that invalidate him being a candidate for a Darwin Award?

Also, do you think you could edit the footnotes to make them links. It would aid readability, and I'm pretty sure it's in the HTML guide for articles.

I don't have any comments on the actual movie, as it's so far removed from my interests. *shrug*

I've always laughed at the things that happened to me, because, again, that makes them easier to deal with, and I'd always thought that, because I was a straight, cis guy, whatever had happened to me couldn't possibly measure up to what women or trans people face on a daily basis. And it doesn't. But after talking with friends and family, I realize it does matter, and I can't just keep laughing it off. Just because a disease isn't cancer or AIDS doesn't mean it isn't fatal if left untreated. And I need to treat this.

Oh, wow. I'm so glad this conversation led to such a positive revelation for you, and you're absolutely right. A couple months ago, I saw something reposted on Facebook, originally from a counselor who's worked with survivors of severe trauma, extreme childhood abuse and the like, and noting that even they are quick to say, "there are other people who have it worse than me." The originally poster's point is that everybody downplays their own woundness in contrast to someone else's experience, and even if the contrast is true, that doesn't mean you don't also need help and healing. Your disease analogy reminds me of a similar comparison I came up with a few years ago, about medical patients, one with severe burns, and multiple broken and fractured bones, and the other with a broken arm. Sure, the former has it worse off and should probably get higher priority in treatment, but that doesn't negate the latter's need for help and healing also.

ironically enough, an internet-based mask let me open up and deal with a deep-rooted issue in my life.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a fairly common experience for people dealing with some heavy shit online? Isn't the anonymity one of the major contributing factors to many people's ability to process issues of trauma, sexual orientation, gender identity, mental illness and a host of other taboo/stigmatized subjects? Doesn't strike me as particularly ironic at all.

In any case, I'm so glad your participation on the site, and this conversation in particular, helped you come to this realization and start working on getting yourself the help you need. I know it's been a while (chronically behind on articles, me), and you're still working out the employment situation, but I hope you've managed some progress here, too.

This film seems more focused on making patriarchally-insulated men as scared as women are when it comes to dating, and it stops at that point, rather than going on to make the male audience think about how to change this patriarchal system.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that true of a lot of social commentary in fiction? I mean, that it shines a light on a particular problem without really pointing towards potential solutions? It seems a fairly common phenomenon to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that true of a lot of social commentary in fiction? I mean, that it shines a light on a particular problem without really pointing towards potential solutions? It seems a fairly common phenomenon to me.

Agreed, and to be honest neither fictional nor non-fictional statements need propose a solution to be valid. I don't need to propose a potential solution to homophobia to point out that Orson Scott Card is a homophobe, for instance.

You just want the world, don't you? In all seriousness, the title was more to indicate Aoyama's stupidity than his dying or being rendered sterile, since the whole point of the Darwin Award and the reason we laugh at the winners is less to do with the results of their actions and more the fact that someone would take those actions to begin with.

Also, do you think you could edit the footnotes to make them links.

I... don't... know... how... I couldn't find anything about it in the HTML Guide, except for the bit about putting links to outside websites in the article, which I thankfully know how to do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that true of a lot of social commentary in fiction? I mean, that it shines a light on a particular problem without really pointing towards potential solutions? It seems a fairly common phenomenon to me.

Agreed, and to be honest neither fictional nor non-fictional statements need propose a solution to be valid. I don't need to propose a potential solution to homophobia to point out that Orson Scott Card is a homophobe, for instance.

I guess this is just another matter of different personal experiences. I just think that if you're going to go to the trouble of making a whole piece of art, as opposed to a simple critique or internet comment, to address a particular social issue, you should try to discuss the issue more comprehensively than simply going "Man, I am so woke for knowing about this issue! Bask in my wokeness." I've run into too many people who think all that's needed to change the world is to smoke weed and brag about how aware they are to find that attitude anything but insufferable. And again, this is all reliant on the axiom that such social commentary was intentional on Miike's part.I really hate to be that guy in this situation. I myself have tried for years to get friends of mine into things that I like, where my best-reasoned arguments and most-impassioned treatises are apathetically deflected by said friends' simple inability to enjoy those things. And I can tell from the comments section that now I'm the one who just doesn't get it. But I'm simply not feeling it like you all are. I wish that I was, but I just...can't. I'm sorry.

Oh yeah. I remember figuring out the html code for footnotes was a little weird for me. I've just looked back at my very first article, and it turns out I submitted it with a footnote, which got coded when the article was transferred from my original text submission into a Ferretbrain article, by Kyra or Rami or whoever would have done that. I must have accessed it that way.

Anyway, at the risk of pulling away the curtain for non-contributing readers, here's the html code I use for footnotes:

(Just remove the spaces before and after the < and > characters - added to prevent auto-formatting - and replace the "1" inside the square brackets with the desired number for both parts after the first footnote.)

I just think that if you're going to go to the trouble of making a whole piece of art, as opposed to a simple critique or internet comment, to address a particular social issue, you should try to discuss the issue more comprehensively than simply going "Man, I am so woke for knowing about this issue! Bask in my wokeness."

Huh, I don't know about that. I mean, absolutely, yes, you should try to discuss the issue comprehensively in a piece of art - but it doesn't necessarily follow that you should suggest a solution. Maybe you think you don't have the answers; or at least aren't convinced your answers are right. Or you think there are too many answers to fit into one piece, and don't want to privilege one or two answers over the others. Or you think it's more important to get your viewers to come up with their own answers.

There have definitely been times when I've seen a piece of art address a given difficult social issue without suggesting a solution, and it felt like a cop-out. But I've also seen plenty of examples which work so perfectly as what they are that putting in a part about "this is how we could fix this problem" would cheapen the result. Doctor Strangelove doesn't fail as a critique of militarism and the nuclear arms race because it refrains from putting forward a comprehensive program for phasing out nuclear weapons, or war in general. Indeed, it would likely be a far inferior film if it tried. Likewise, The Lorax doesn't need to propose a solution for environmental devastation to make the point that environmental devastation is a serious problem that we should work to solve.

I can believe that, if Audition is indeed trying to make a serious point about rape culture and male violence, it does so badly. But I think if so, then I don't think "it fails to propose a solution to these problems" is the reason.

And I can tell from the comments section that now I'm the one who just doesn't get it. But I'm simply not feeling it like you all are. I wish that I was, but I just...can't. I'm sorry.

I hope you're kidding, because a piece of art working fine for other people is no reason to expect it should necessarily work for you as well. Personally, I've never seen and with luck never will see Audition, because, as I've mentioned elsewhere, horror is decidedly not one of my preferred genres; especially not film/tv horror.